@Chrisprattalpharaptr's banner p

Chrisprattalpharaptr

Ave Imperaptor

1 follower   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 November 15 02:36:44 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 1864

Chrisprattalpharaptr

Ave Imperaptor

1 follower   follows 1 user   joined 2022 November 15 02:36:44 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1864

Verified Email

I don’t know why gun rights advocates don’t just admit that yes, if all guns were confiscated and a very strict licensing regime was put in place gun homicides would likely drop substantially.

Because 'We're the baddies but there's so many of us we'll make it politically impossible for you to take our guns' is a lot less inspirational than 'We're martyrs watering the tree of liberty and defending ourselves from a tyrannical government.'

  • -27

I personally find that even less inspiring but whatever floats your boat man.

  • -11

Thankfully, hlynka is routinely wrong by multiple orders of magnitude so I think I'm still safe.

But what's the point? Seriously, why even talk about this just to get gaslit by the people who are celebrating it at the same time as denying it's happening? You could spend your entire life writing tens of thousands of words explaining and analyzing this insanity, and all it does it give the perpetrators the satisfaction of gloating about getting away with it.

What are we even doing here? Are we just going to keep doing it forever as the country goes completely insane? Why? What possible good will it do? Is this whole place just a safety release valve to stop any pressure building up against the overton window slamming left faster than the eye can see?

Consider that in writing mindkilled screeds about how terrible everything is, you're probably part of the problem. Maybe engage in a bit of self-reflection. Consider compromise. Read the aspirational text at the top of the culture war thread. Do something that makes you happy. Touch grass?

More realistically, Trump gets elected, Republicans suddenly stop caring about deficit spending and cut taxes and voila - all of your problems are magically solved. Instead of crying about how bad everything is you'll be crowing about the liberal snowflakes losing their minds over Orange Man Bad and TDS.

Does anyone actually get any pleasure out of this? Does anyone think it's doing any good?

I used to. When the people like you were diluted by those who were well-meaning, who wanted to have actual conversations and maybe learn a thing or two from someone with a different perspective.

How about this? If you can manage to write a measured and polite post about any of the topics above, I'll respond in kind. If the though of trying to do that is so abhorrent, then maybe this isn't the place for you.

It says "Moms for Liberty" right on the tin

And yet, most of their advocacy revolves around banning books and curricula discussing LGBT, trans and civil rights issues:

Accompanying that letter is an 11-page spreadsheet with complaints about books on the district’s curriculum, ranging from popular books on civil rights heroes to books about poisonous animals (“text speaks of horned lizard squirting blood out of its eyes”), Johnny Appleseed (“story is sad and dark”), and Greek and Roman mythology (“illustration of the goddess Venus naked coming out of the ocean...story of Tantalus and how he cooks up, serves, and eats his son.”) A book about hurricanes is no good (“1st grade is too young to hear about possible devastating effects of hurricanes”) and a book about owls is designated as a downer. (“It’s a sad book, but turns out ok. Not a book I would want to read for fun,” an adult wrote of the owl book in the spreadsheet.)

...

At one juncture, the group implores the school district to include more charitable descriptions of the Catholic Church when teaching a book about astronomer Galileo Galilei, who was persecuted by said church for suggesting that Earth revolves around the sun. “Where is the HERO of the church?” the group’s spreadsheet asks, “to contrast with their mistakes? There are so many opportunities to teach children the truth of our history as a nation. The Church has a huge and lasting influence on American culture. Both good and bad should be represented. The Christian church is responsible for the genesis of Hospitals, Orphanages, Social Work, Charity, to name a few.” MFL’s Williamson County chapter also takes issue with a picture book about seahorses, in part because it depicted “mating seahorses with pictures of postions [sic] and discussion of the male carrying the eggs.”

So painting them as being about Liberty in any meaningful sense of the word, other than Liberty being a red-tribe codeword, seems patently dishonest. Their objections to content are often explicitly political and coded red-tribe. Some of the shit that was banned in Florida schools a few years ago was hilariously inoffensive.

As for the OP, whatever. I don't really care. But if people bothered to look at the context, I'd expect most to at least get a chuckle out of the fact that people clutching their pearls at the idea of their child being exposed to the idea that gay people exist then get schwasted with them on the weekend in between threesomes.

Too bad they couldn't influence the election in 2016, for all their power. Or supreme court shenanigans. Or rampant gerrymandering. Or protect abortion rights. Turns out running the OWG and pulling all the strings in the American government isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Tens of millions of people care what conservative media thinks, and they vote accordingly. A conservative judge couldn't be pressured into recusing themselves by the media.

Fair enough, but the point still stands. They're putting out 3-10 per day on the dates I can check.

Do you know of a more accurate way to quantify?

Again Trump was indicted for correctly sniffing out the corruption of the Biden’s and using government power to bring it to the forefront. How was what Trump did harmful to US policy? Is that really the only standard?

That's not what Trump was indicted for.

We are now stating “presidents or vice presidents can accept bribes as long as it doesn’t harm the US?” I don’t believe you really believe that.

Then maybe if the idea that I'm making a pro-bribery argument beggars belief you should consider that your interpretation of what I'm saying was flawed.

I thought I was clear

I'm sure you do.

the only reason anyone cares about a code of ethics is because of politicized reporting smearing conservative justices. Therefore, the code of ethics itself is but a cudgel to be used against said justices.

And the only reason we care about the Hatch act is that we might someday use it to coerce conservative congress members to resign. Just look at George Santos! We should probably do away with ethics rules in the House. No doubt the IRS is just going to be used to go after conservatives citizens, so we probably ought to dissolve that. The printing press has just been used as a cudgel against conservatives since the 16th century, and the rule of law has fucked conservatives since Hammurabi so we should probably do away with those as well.

I guess the cops are okay. They probably won't go after conservatives.

What you're being unclear about is any kind of broader position beyond being salty that a conservative justice is catching heat for something that, were the shoe on the other foot, you'd be just as happy to complain about. Are you just against any kind of neutral rules so long as what you think of as a biased media could leverage it against a prominent conservative? Are you specifically against any kind of code of ethics for the Supreme court, and if so, how is that different from any other example of ethics/rules that (at least on paper) apply equally to everyone? Is there some kind of underlying principle, or again, are you just salty that your ox got gored?

Yeah, but it won't come out, because that's not the media landscape that exists in reality. In reality, the Hunter Biden laptop full of incriminating evidence is pre-bunked as a non-story and literally every single major media enterprise gets with the program in lockstep fashion.

You say it wouldn't come out, and then give an example that...everyone knows about. The Hunter Biden laptop story was happily trumpeted through conservative talk radio, breitbart, Fox news, boomer facebook and wherever else conservatives get their news. It was broadly discussed in the NYT and plenty of other mainstream outlets as well.

No major media would cover it seriously, instead the story would be how Republicans are melting down over racist conspiracy theories.

Fox News, literally the most-watched news channel would cover it. As would conservative talk radio, which is how Trump supporters get their news. Randos in rural Idaho aren't getting the Times delivered to their doorsteps.

Walter Cronkite

Who's that, like, a tiktok influencer?

You've found a way to quantify this? Fascinating!

Being directionally wrong is infinite orders of magnitude wrong

Or (3) righteously toppling a would-be tin-pot tyrant who had a (metaphorical) boot on their necks.

I think it's more likely to be a Straussian conjugation of (2).

I recommend being cautious when speaking to someone else's internal state and motivation.

True, I try to be mindful that I'm typical-minding conservatives.

Many (initially) successful revolutions started with no unified positive vision except "the status quo is intolerable." And few groups manage to implement their vision in the event anyway.

When the boog boys are kicking my door down I'll die yelling about how their reactionary vision is inadequate to win popular support.

Permananned for being naughty while arguing with the HBD people.

In context I'd defend it as 'freedom not to have one's children indoctrinated into the state religion'

Indeed; mask mandates are also pro-liberty as they give people the freedom to not worry about getting COVID in the train. Censorship gives LGBT and minorities freedom from hate speech. Jailing Donald Trump will give us freedom from fascism and neo-nazism.

Censorship is inherently illiberal however you try and dress it up. That doesn't make it bad. There's such an aversion to censorship that when we actually decide we want to engage in it we have to lie to ourselves and dress it up as some freedom or another.

school is mandatory and funded by all sides of the political spectrum after all.

Better argument for the curriculum. Bad argument for book bans. Nobody is forcing your child to look at those books any more than anyone was forcing the other high school kids to go to that party.

I don't think it's unreasonable to demand a neutral curriculum

Whew. Good luck with that one, man.

And the NYT have 10 million subscribers out of hundreds of millions of american citizens. Guess conservatives overestimate the impact of the Times as well. I doubt very much that conservatives in DC ignore what Hannity and the rest of them think, given how they stumble over themselves for endorsements. And Clarence Thomas could participate in a case that affects someone who owns his mother's house without any consequence whatsoever.

No, there is a code of conduct. A conservative judge could have an absolutely egregious conflict of interest and fox news, conservative talk radio and boomer facebook would carry water for them.

I haven't read much about the code of conduct in particular, just that there is one, but in general I think it's a cudgel to be used against the conservative justices, because that's how its implementation has been characterized.

You don't explicitly lay out how a code of conduct that applies to everyone equally is biased against Conservative justices. Is it because you think conservative media outlets are incapable of doing investigative journalism? That only Conservative justices are likely to violate said code of conduct? That everyone is corrupt, but the public/congress will selectively pressure corrupt Conservative justices?

If it came out that, say, Soros was buying houses and fancy vacations for some of the liberal justices I'd anticipate Fox News, talk radio and the Matt Gaetz' of the world would convulse in a collective orgasm and talk about it nonstop for the next three months. Do you disagree?

What exactly does this text message mean in the context of your statement? Hunter Biden is on the record complaining about how Joe takes half of his salary, so we know that there's a direct relation between the money that Hunter has been making and Joe's financial resources.

I don't have a satisfying answer, although the text you're citing isn't what was given as evidence a couple posts above.

The flip side to that question is, if true, where is the money going? Hunter Biden is worth 250 million, so we're talking a 7 figure salary, no? Joe Biden's net worth is estimated to be 9 million, so if Hunter is kicking him back 5 million a year, where is the money going? Presumably not real estate and cars, unless he's got a couple dozen lambos tucked away in the Delaware batcave.

Digging into articles on the subject, they don't exactly paint a picture of Hunter funding Joe's lavish lifestyle:

There were $1,239 in repairs to an air conditioner at “mom-mom’s cottage,” and another $1,475 to a painter for “back wall and columns at the lake house.” There was also another $2,600 for fixing up a “stone retaining wall at the lake” and $475 “for shutters.”

Why was Joe Biden using lines of credit set up by Hunter? I don't see how you can square your view of the situation with the texts and emails that we actually have access to thanks to the laptop.

Don't know. Curious to see what they were buying, or if there's any evidence that Joe was actually making extravagant purchases anywhere in the ballpark of what you're alleging.

If you'll forgive the blatant whataboutism (though given that I'm swimming in whataboutisms it seems like that's just the way the game is played 'round here these days), do you feel the same way about Kushner taking 2 billion dollars from Saudi Arabia months after playing a major role managing US relations in the middle east in Trump's white house?

Joe Biden's net worth is something like 9 million dollars. His tax filings are public. He isn't taking millions of dollars worth of bribes from foreign officials. At best you could argue that Hunter Biden (net worth 250 mil) is doing the dirty work of selling influence on Biden senior's policy choices, as others have in this thread, although that doesn't square very well with the '10 held by H for the big guy' narrative.

Why are 2, 3, and 4 separated? Regardless of how it got out, it did get NIH funding, no?

Because the total annual budget for a research institute will be in the tens of millions of dollars (bit of a rough guess as it's hard for me to tran, and the ecohealth alliance given to WIV was in the low 6 figures per annum if I remember correctly - most of the funding goes to American researchers. That's enough money to fund a couple of students/scientists, not even a full lab. There's maybe 45-50 professors at WIV, each with their own grants and projects. It's entirely possible that they had a completely separate project distinct from Ecohealth that involved coronaviruses/humanized mice/chimeric viruses/GoF that went poorly.

He was pushing his weight around trying to discredit the Lab Leak theory, wasn't he?

Yes, as was I. It's worth remembering that early on the evidence being cited by lab leak truthers was actual garbage that was easily refuted; the fact that people were pushing the lab leak theory in the absence of data early on gave me the strong belief that they had ulterior motives. It took a while for the case to build. The narrative isn't so cut and dried as bigoted PhDs hate internet amateurs who had mountains of evidence to make their case.

I do agree with you that Fauci did try to spike the story early. It's not clear to me whether that was out of a circling of the wagons to try and maintain support for scientific funding, whether it was trying to avoid personal culpability/scandal or something else entirely.

But...again, say you believe me for a moment that most of the relevant decisions were made by other people and rubber stamped by Fauci's office. Are you still going to obsess over Fauci, or try and understand the process that led to that decision?

I get that this is intended as a self-deprecating joke, but it's the sort of joking-not-joking that reads like it's also yes.jpg.

It's neither. This is either getting lost in the gaps between our cultures, or the speech-to-text nature of the internet so I'll be blunt. It's me saying you're being a jerk, and Go Away.

Remarkably, when I complain about SJWs my writing drastically improves, my arguments are unassailable and we're all great friends. If I'm writing about immigration, guns or other touchy subjects, you pop up with a list of standards that the majority of top-level posts, let alone replies, come nowhere near meeting. Yet you never seem particularly upset with much more inflammatory and low-effort right-wing takes.

I've tried to keep an open mind and I appreciate the breadth of your knowledge, but frankly, the criticism isn't constructive anymore (if it ever was) and I don't enjoy the back and forth at this point. Gonna have to do what I do and ghost after this.

There are a number of Grand Positive Visions on the general 'right', with the libertarian ones being the most-generally-known and most-generally-critiqued.

I'd argue that there were, but that times they have a'changed over the last 6 years. Trump was as profligate as the democrats and aligned more with them on i.e. covid relief welfare than his party to great acclaim from his base. The Tea Party is a joke, mostly revealed as a means to stymie Obama's legislative agenda rather than any real desire amongst conservatives to reduce spending. Libertarian and evangelical Christian ideals don't hold the same pull they once did, the Republican party is in flux, and a new vision has yet to emerge. Like...David French having a vision widespread among modern conservatives? The guy who writes in support of prosecuting Trump and how Trumpism has been a disaster for the American evangelical? When's the last time Breitbart or Fox News were meaningfully influenced by any of the ideologies you mentioned? I'm sure there are many Christians on the right, but to suggest that Christian morals is the animus of the modern conservative just isn't true anymore.

Even within those limits of the medium, I don't think extrapolating from posters responding to a top-level comment clearly trying to evoke sympathy for their political enemies under norms they've never avowed is going to be a particularly good place to go hunting for examples of grand positive vision...

Ah, yes, because my entire argument was based on that one comment thread. Speaking of limitations of that medium.

And I think that an emphasis you've selected -- "vibe you get" from "conservatives here", selected from the posts you read -- leaves far too many degrees of freedom.

I do that to 1) try and be less inflammatory because clearly it's a touchy subject and 2) because if I didn't couch my argument in 'I thinks' and 'vibes' you'd be ranting about how ridiculous it is that I have so much confidence in such a stupid argument with no citations. You'll be critical whichever choice I make short of just not writing anything, so why should I engage?

Not because I think WhiningCoil specifically spends a lot of wordcount on positive vision (even if you could steelman one)

He got 40 upvotes for saying that he has no morals anymore. I think we can drop the ridiculous charade that anyone is upvoting based on post quality rather than what they agree with, so it's frankly hilarious and pathetic that so many of you agree with that. And it's not even like that's the only example I could dig up! You're trying to avoid confronting that fact by prevaricating about the medium, or I'm looking in the wrong place, or scare quotes around 'vibes' and 'conservatives around here.'

So to make my point clear: I have concluded that the Democrats, on most levels, are completely against the norms, traditions, and legal boundaries that were supposed to define the nation they aspire to govern, and more relevant, are completely willing to discard said norms, traditions, and boundaries whenever they're an actual impediment to their own party's interests.

I often see very similar rhetoric in left-leaning spaces levelled against Republicans. Are you confident that Republicans hew to tradition, norms and legal boundaries?

You're not wrong, but there's still a valid argument there to consider.

When the government takes half your paycheck and gives it to a swarm of party-aligned parasites that live off grant money, the government is denying you agency.

Hey man, I don't like that the government is subsidizing traditionally red tribe occupations either, but you should really pressure your elected officials if you want it to stop.

Not to mention the income tax rate tops out at 37%, so it's not half your paycheck, and even if you are in the top tax bracket...you really don't have anything to be complaining about because you're making over half a mil per year.

When politicians coordinate with megacorporations to enrich themselves by impoverishing american workers, they are denying you agency.

Based. How do you want to bust the megacorps, comrade?

When your child isn't allowed to take algebra in school because a leftist "education consultant" got paid $5000/hr to call math racist while sending her children to a private school, they are denying you agency.

That's an impressive 10,000,000$ per year. Do you have any idea how I could become an education consultant?

Anyways, I'll ask you the same question as last time. I largely agree with you about the problems in the country. Do you have any realistic, well-thought out plans to address them? We could zero out budgets for all the education consultants, all the minority-owned business subsidies, most of the other stuff you complain about as woke, and your buddy would still be struggling to feed his family stocking shelves. If you want to cut taxes, we probably need to cut medicare and social security (I'm assuming you don't want to touch the military), so your shelf-stocking friend will age into being a senior who both can't afford healthcare and has to keep stocking shelves until he keels over and dies.

But seriously, I'm listening. I'm open to having my mind changed. What do you actually want? What's your positive vision for the future?

I can well believe that Canada decided to subsidize shitty behavior by taxing good behavior. This question is more out of curiosity than a challenge- how exactly did Canada do this in a more egregious manner than other first world countries with their eg single motherhood benefits.

Are you confident that other countries without those single motherhood benefits, such as the US, have lower rates of single motherhood than Canada? Because I don't think that's true even controlling for race. I'm sure cheaper daycare has an effect on the margin, but I'm skeptical that if Canada elected a clean Conservative slate and abolished the entirety of their welfare system that all the problems OP gestures at would evaporate. Even leaving aside the new problems generated as a consequence.